Council tries to cast new light on genetics and food

November 08, 2006|By Janet Helm, Special to the Tribune

Nothing about food stirs up a debate quite like biotechnology.

The thought of tinkering with genes in plants or animals hits a nerve for some folks, who are either frightened or morally opposed to genetically modified, or GM, foods (dubbed "Frankenfoods" by critics).

Proponents praise the potential of biotechnology to practically save the world--helping to increase the food supply, address hunger and malnutrition in developing countries, and reduce our reliance on pesticides.

Rarely is the topic discussed without intense emotion and activism, with both sides fervently lining up arguments for and against the use of biotechnology.

That's why the Illinois Humanities Council is hosting statewide "conversations" on genetics and food, bringing together an ethicist, geneticist and food historian to objectively examine the issue from various perspectives.

"We wanted to strip away the typical pro and con debate and take a look at genetics through the lens of the humanities," said Dimitra Tasiouras, director of programs and partnerships for the council, which recently held a public forum at the Notebaert Nature Museum in Chicago titled "Future Perfect: Conversations on the Meaning of the Genetics Revolution."

A lack of public engagement has been part of the reason behind the current mistrust of GM foods, according to panelist Vivian Weil, a professor of ethics at the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago.

She said the public often sees a risk attached to a new technology if they think scientists are moving too fast and they feel uninformed or "out of the loop."

Jocelyn Malamy, associate professor in the department of molecular genetics and cell biology at the University of Chicago, believes people are jumbling up a lot of food-related issues--including organic vs. non-organic and sustainable agriculture--and erroneously putting them under the biotechnology umbrella.

Malamy said it is impossible to fully condemn or embrace genetically modified foods because they are not all created equal. Biotechnology is a "process" and not an entire category of foods, she explained. Each GM plant needs to be evaluated individually.

Currently, the only two types of GM products on the market include "Round-up Ready" plants that are bred to be herbicide resistant and "Bt" plants that contain a gene taken from a bacterium that provides a built-in defense against harmful insects, which can reduce the use of pesticides.

This technology has primarily been limited to soybeans, corn, canola and cotton. Melamy believes adequate testing of these existing products should quell safety concerns.

Other prototypes in the works include nutrient-enhanced rice, drought-resistant plants and higher-yielding plants that require less fertilizer.

Bruce Kraig, president of the Culinary Historians of Chicago, reminded the audience that farmers have long modified the genetic makeup of their crops through selective breeding. Biotechnology is an evolution of traditional crop breeding that allows the transfer of a single gene instead of mixing thousands of genes when two plants are crossed.

A misunderstanding about the science is at the core of the mistrust, said Melamy. She said it's important to ask questions about adequate safety testing, government oversight, labeling and other issues. But she hopes confusion does not prevent the public from accepting the "idea" of biotechnology. She believes multiple benefits can be derived from the science.

But judging from the strong opinions voiced by some agitated audience members-- primarily focused on safety concerns and perceived influence of "Big Business"-- that acceptance may take some time.